RFC Editor Model (Version 2)olaf@nlnetlabs.nlEricssonjoel.halpern@ericsson.comCheck Point Software959 Skyway RoadSan CarlosCA94070USAbob.hinden@gmail.comRFC
The RFC Editor model described in this document divides the
responsibilities for the RFC Series into three functions: the RFC
Series Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversight via the RFC Series
Oversight Committee (RSOC) is described, as is the relationship
between the IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
and the RSOC. This document reflects the experience gained
with "RFC Editor Model (Version 1)", documented in RFC 5620; and
obsoletes RFC 6635 to replace all references to the IASA and
related structures with those defined by the IASA 2.0 Model.[RFC Editor: Please remove the following paragraph prior to
publication.]The IASA2 WG requests that the IAB publish this replacement
for RFC 6635.This document reflects the experience gained with "RFC Editor
Model (Version 1)", documented in , and
updates the RFC Editor Model (Version 2) to be aligned with the new
IASA 2.0 Model that creates a
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company ("LLC") managed by
a board of directors ("LLC Board"). As part of the IASA 2.0 Model
the Internet Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) is eliminated,
and its oversight and advising functions transferred to the new LLC.
This document obsoletes to replace all
references to the IASA and related structures with those defined by
the IASA 2.0 Model.
The IAB, on behalf of the Internet technical community, is concerned
with ensuring the continuity of the RFC Series, orderly RFC Editor
succession, RFC quality, and RFC document accessibility. The IAB is
also sensitive to the concerns of the LLC about providing the
necessary services in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
The contemporary RFC Editor model was first
approved in October 2008, and our understanding of the model has
evolved with our experience since. During the implementation of
version 1 of the model , it was quickly
realized that the role of the RFC Series Editor (RSE) and the
oversight responsibilities needed to be structured differently. In
order to gain experience with "running code", a transitional RSE was
hired who analyzed the managerial environment and provided
recommendations. This was followed by the appointment of an acting
RSE, who ably managed the series while work was undertaken to select
and hire a permanent RSE. This version of the model is based on the
recommendations of both temporary RFC Series Editors and the
extensive discussion in the IETF community, on the rfc-interest
list, and within the IAB.
This document, and the resulting structures, will be modified as
needed through normal procedures. The RSE, and the IAB, through the
RFC Oversight Committee (see ), will continue
to monitor discussions within the community about potential
adjustments to the RFC Editor model and recognize that the process
described in this document may need to be adjusted to align with any
changes that result from such discussions; hence, the version number
in the title.
The IAB maintains it's responsibilities as defined in .
The RFC Series is described in . Its
Section 3.1 defines "RFC Editor":
Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
Series (the RFC Editor). The task has grown, and the work now
requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are
RFC Editors, or an RFC Editor organization. In time, there may be
multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
required by the RFC Series. For simplicity's sake, and without
attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
this document refers to this collection of experts and
organizations as the "RFC Editor". The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
acting to support the mission of the RFC Series. As such, the RFC
Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes. In addition,
the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
RFCs.
RFC 4844 does not explore the internal organization of the RFC
Editor. However, RFC 4844 envisions changes in the RFC Editor
organizational structure. There have been several iterations on
efforts to improve and clarify this structure. These have been
led by the IAB, in consultation with the community and many
leadership bodies within the community. This first resulted in
the publication of and then in further
discussions leading to this document. Some of the details on
this evolution can be found below. In undertaking this
evolution, the IAB considered changes that increase flexibility
and operational support options, provide for the orderly
succession of the RFC Editor, and ensure the continuity of the
RFC Series, while maintaining RFC quality, maintaining timely
processing, ensuring document accessibility, reducing costs, and
increasing cost transparency. The model set forth below describes
the internal organization of the RFC Editor, while remaining
consistent with RFC 4844.
Note that RFC 4844 uses the term "RFC Editor function" or "RFC
Editor" as the collective set of responsibilities for which
this memo provides a model for internal organization. This
memo defines the term "RFC Series Editor" or "Series
Editor" for one of the organizational components.
The RFC Editor model divides the responsibilities for
the RFC Series into the following components:
RFC Series Editor (RSE)RFC Production CenterRFC Publisher
The structure and relationship of the components of the RFC
Series production and process is schematically represented by the
figure below. The picture does not depict oversight and
escalation relations. It does include the streams and their
managers (which are not part of the RFC Series Editor, the RFC
Production Center, or Publisher facilities) in order to more
fully show the context in which the RFC Series Editor operates.
Submission +-----> | | | . | n |
| | | Editor | . | P | | | . | d |
| | | | . | r | | RFC | . | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | | . | U |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | d | | P | . | s |
| | | | . | u | | u | . | e |
| IAB +--> IAB +-----> c | | b | . | r |
| | | | . | t | | l | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | i +---> i +--------> |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | o | | s | . | & |
| | | | . | n | | h | . | |
| IRTF +--> IRSG +---->| | | e | . | R |
| | | | . | C | | r | . | e |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | e | | | . | a |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . | n | | | . | d |
| | | | . | t | | | . | e |
| IETF +--> IESG +-----> e | | | . | r |
| | | | . | r | | | . | s |
+-------------+ +-------------+ . +-----+ +-----+ . +-----+
. .
+..... RFC Editor ....+
]]>
Structure of RFC Series Production and Process
In this model, documents are produced and approved through
multiple document streams. The stream manager for each stream is
responsible for the content of that stream. The four streams
that now exist are described in . The
RFC Editor function is responsible for the packaging and
distribution of the documents. As such, documents from these
streams are edited and processed by the Production Center and
published by the Publisher. The RFC Series Editor will exercise
strategic leadership and management over the activities of the
RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center (both of which can be
seen as back-office functions) and will be the entity that:
Represents the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function within
the IETF and externally.Leads the community in the design of improvements to the RFC
Series.Is responsible for planning and seeing to the execution of
improvements in the RFC Editor production and access
processes. Is responsible for the content of the rfc-editor.org web
site, which is operated and maintained by the RFC
Publisher.Is responsible for developing consensus versions of
vision and policy documents. These documents will be
reviewed by the RFC Series Oversight Committee () and subject to its approval before final
publication.
These responsibilities are defined below, although the specific
work items under them are a matter for the actual employment
contract and its Statement of Work (SOW).
The IAB maintain it's chartered
responsibility as defined in .
More details on the
oversight by the IAB via the RFC Series Oversight Committee
(RSOC) can be found in . For example,
the RSE does not have the direct authority to
hire or fire RFC Editor
contractors or personnel.
The RFC Series Editor is the individual with overall
responsibility for the quality, continuity, and evolution of
the RFC Series.
The RSE is appointed by the IAB, but formally hired by the
LLC. The IAB delegates the direct oversight over the RSE to the
RSOC, which it appoints.The RSE is expected to cooperate closely with the LLC and
the stream managers. With respect to the RFC Publisher and Production Center
functions, the RSE provides input to the LLC budget, SOWs, and
manages vendor selection processes. The RSE performs annual
reviews of the RFC Production Center and Publisher function,
which are then provided to the RSOC, the LLC, and the community.
Normally, private financial details would not be included in a
public version unless the LLC concludes it is necessary to
make such information public.
The RSE is responsible for the performance of the RFC Production
Center and Publisher. The RSE is responsible for issues that go
beyond the RFC Production Center or Publisher functions, such as
cross-stream coordination of priorities. Issues that require
changes to the budget or contracts shall be brought to the
attention of the LLC by the RSE.The RSE is also responsible for creating documentation and
structures that will allow for continuity of the RFC Series in the
face of changes in contracts and personnel. Vendor selection for the RFC Production Center and Publisher
functions is done in cooperation with the streams and under final
authority of the LLC. Details on this process can be found in
.The RSE is the primary representative of the RFC Series. This
representation is important both internally, relative to the
IETF, and externally.The RSE is the primary point of contact to the IETF on matters
relating to the RFC Series in general, or policy matters relating
to specific documents. Issues of practical details in the
processing of specific documents are generally worked through
directly with the RFC Production Center staff.This includes providing suitable reports to the community at
large, providing email contact for policy questions and inputs,
and enabling and participating in suitable on-line forums for
discussion of issues related to the RFC Series.Due to the history and nature of the interaction between the
RSE and the IETF, certain principles, described in the following
subsections, must be understood and adhered to by the RSE in his
or her interactions with the community. These apply to the
representation function, as well as to the leadership the RSE
provides for production and series development.The vast majority of Internet technical community work is
led, initiated, and done by community volunteers, including
oversight, policy making, and direct production of, for
example, many software tools. The RSE, while not a volunteer,
is dependent upon these volunteer participants. Also, the
spirit of the community is heavily focused on and draws from
these volunteers. As such, the RSE needs to support the
vitality and effectiveness of volunteer participation.All decisions are to be made in the overall interest of the
broader Internet community. The RSE is responsible for identifying
materially concerned interest groups within the Internet community
and reaching out to them. Those interest groups include at least the
IETF community, the IRTF community, the network research community,
and the network operations community. Other interest groups might
also be materially interested.The RSE must consult with the community on policy issues. The RSE
works with the community to achieve policy that meets the overall
quality, continuity, and evolution goals the RSE is charged with
meeting. As described in , the RSE reports the
results of such interactions to the RSOC, including a description of
the outreach efforts and the specific recommendations on policy.
This enables the RSOC to provide the oversight the IAB is required to
apply, as well as to confirm that the Internet community has been
properly consulted and considered in making policy.From time to time, individuals or organizations external to
the IETF need a contact person to talk to about the RFC Series.
The RSE, or the RSE's designate, serves this role.Over time, the RSE should determine what, if any, means should
be employed to increase end-user awareness of the series, to
reinforce the stature of the series, and to provide the contact
point for outside parties seeking information on the series or
the Editor.Closely related to providing strategic leadership and
management to the RFC Production Center and Publisher functions
is the need to develop and improve those functions. The RSE is
responsible for ensuring that such ongoing development takes
place.This effort must include the dimensions of document quality,
timeliness of production, and accessibility of results. It
must also specifically take into account issues raised by the
IETF community, including all the streams feeding into the RFC
Editor function.In order to develop the RFC Series, the RSE is expected to
develop a relationship with the Internet technical community. The
Editor is expected to engage with the Internet technical community
in a process of articulating and refining a vision for the series
and its continuous evolution. The RSE is also expected to engage
other users of the RFC Series, in particular, the consumers of
these documents, such as those people who use them to specify
products, write code, test behaviors, or other related
activities.Concretely:
The RSE is responsible for the coordination of discussion on
series evolution among the series' stream participants and the
broader Internet technical community.In time, the RSE is expected to develop and refine a vision for
the RFC Series, including examining:
The RFC Series, as it continues to evolve. The RSE is
expected to take a broad view and look for the best ways to
evolve the series for the benefit of the entire Internet
community. As such, the RSE may even consider evolution beyond
the historical 'by engineers for engineers' emphasis; andIts publication-technical environment, by looking at whether
it should be slowly changing in terms of publishing and
archiving techniques -- particularly to better serve the
communities that produce and depend on the RFC Series. For
example, all of those communities have been slowly changing to
include a significant population of multi-lingual individuals or
non-native speakers of English. Another example is that some of
these constituencies also have shifted to include significant
groups whose primary focus is on the constraints and
consequences of network engineering, rather than a primary
interest in the engineering issues themselves.For this type of responsibility, the RSE cooperates closely with
the community, and operates under oversight of the RSOC: thus,
ultimately, under oversight of the IAB.On average, the job is expected to take half of a full-time
equivalent position (FTE, thus approx 20 hrs per week), with the
workload per week nearing full time during IETF weeks. In
addition, the job is expected to take more than 20 hours per week
in the first few months of the engagement and when involved in
special projects.
The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional.
The following qualifications are desired:
Strategic leadership and management experience
fulfilling the requirements outlined in this document, the
many aspects of this role, and the coordination of the
overall RFC Editor process.Good understanding of the English language and technical
terminology related to the Internet.Good communication skills.Experience with editorial processes.Ability to develop strong understanding of the IETF and
RFC process.Independent worker.Willingness to, and availability for, travel.The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor and
matrixed environment with divided authority and responsibility similar
to that described in this document.Experience with and ability to participate in, and
manage, activities by email and teleconferences, not just
face-to-face interactions.Demonstrated experience in strategic planning and the
management of entire operations.Experience as an RFC author.The RSE is expected to avoid even the appearance of conflict
of interest or judgment in performing these roles. As such, the
RSE is barred from having any ownership, advisory, or other
relationship to the vendors executing the RFC Publisher or
Production Center functions except as specified elsewhere in this
document. If necessary, an exception can be made after public
disclosure of those relationships and with the explicit
permission of the IAB and LLC.
The RFC Production Center function is performed by a paid contractor, and the
contractor's responsibilities include the following:
Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the
RFC Style Manual, under the direction of the RSE;Creating records of edits performed on documents;Identifying where editorial changes might have technical
impact and seeking necessary clarification;Engaging in dialog with authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is
needed;
Creating records of dialog with document authors;Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as
needed;Providing sufficient resources to support reviews of RFC
Publisher performance by the RFC Series Editor and external
reviews of the RFC Editor function initiated by the IAB or LLC; Coordinating with IANA to ensure correct documentation of
IANA-performed protocol registry actions;Assigning RFC numbers; Establishing publication readiness of each document
through communication with the authors, document shepherds,
IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with
the RFC Series Editor; Forwarding documents that are ready for publication to the RFC
Publisher;Forwarding records of edits and author dialog to the RFC
Publisher so these can be preserved;Liaising with the streams as needed.All these activities will be done under the general direction,
but not day-to-day management, of
the RSE and need some level of coordination with various
submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected through
an LLC Request for Proposal (RFP) process as described in .
The RFC Publisher responsibilities include the following:
Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs.Providing an on-line system to submit RFC Errata.Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.Providing backups.Providing storage and preservation of records.Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings.All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of
coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.
The RFC Publisher contractor is to be selected through
an LLC RFP process as described in .
The IAB is responsible for the oversight of the RFC Series and
acts as a body for final conflict resolution, including the
process described in .In order to provide continuity over periods longer than the NomCom
appointment cycle and assure that oversight includes suitable
subject matter expertise, the IAB will establish a group that implements
oversight for the IAB, the RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC).The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
community. While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be
allowed the latitude to do its job without undue interference
from the IAB. Therefore, it is expected that the IAB
will accord RSOC reports and recommendations the benefit of
the doubt.For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and firing),
the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final decision is
the responsibility of the IAB. For instance the RSOC would do the following:
perform annual reviews of the RSE and report the result of
these reviews to the IAB. manage RSE candidate selection and advise the IAB on candidate
appointment (in other words, select the RSE subject to IAB
approval).RSOC members are expected to recognize potential conflicts of
interest and behave accordingly.For the actual recruitment and selection of the RSE, the RSOC will
propose a budget for the search process. It will work with the LLC
to refine that budget and develop remuneration criteria and an
employment agreement or contracting plans, as appropriate.
The RSOC will be responsible for ensuring that the RFC Series is run in
a transparent and accountable manner.The RSOC shall develop and publish its own rules of order.The initial RSOC was charged with designing and executing a
solicitation, search, and selection process for the first actual (not
transitional or "acting") RSE appointment. That process involved
iteration on this and related documents and evaluation of various
strategies and options. During the creation of this document, it was
expected that the RSOC would describe the process it ultimately
selected to the community. The RSOC did involve the community in
interim considerations when that was likely to be of value. Following
completion of the selection process, the RSOC will determine the best
way to share information learned and experience gained with the
community and determine how to best preserve that information for
future use.
The RSOC will operate under the authority of the IAB, with the IAB
retaining final responsibility. The IAB will delegate authority and
responsibility to the RSOC as appropriate and as RSOC and RSE
relationships evolve. The RSOC will include people who are not
current IAB members. Currently, this is aligned with the IAB
program structure. The IAB will designate the
membership of the RSOC with the following goals: preserving effective
stability; keeping it small enough to be effective, and keeping it large enough
to provide general Internet community expertise, specific IETF
expertise, publication expertise, and stream expertise. Members
serve at the pleasure of the IAB and are expected to bring a balance
between short- and long-term perspectives. Specific input about, and
recommendations of, members will be sought from the streams, the
LLC, and the RSE.In addition to the members from outside of the IAB appointed to the
RSOC, IAB members may participate as full members of the RSOC. Under
most circumstances, there will be a specific individual IAB member
appointed by the IAB as the program lead, who will be a full member of
the RSOC. This member's role is distinct from any RSOC-internal
organizational roles, such as would be created by the RSOC choosing to
appoint a chair from among its members. Other IAB members may choose
to be full members of the RSOC, with the consent of the IAB. This
consent is primarily concerned with avoiding overpopulating the RSOC
and providing it with relatively stable membership, which will work
best if it is not too large a committee.The LLC will appoint an individual to serve as its liaison to
the RSOC. The RSE and the LLC Liaison will serve as
non-voting ex officio members of the RSOC. Either or both can be
excluded from its discussions if necessary.
The exact implementation of the administrative and contractual
activities described here are a responsibility of the IETF
Administration Limited Liability Company in cooperation with the RFC Series
Editor. The authority structure is described in Figure 2 below.
As stated earlier, vendor selection is done in cooperation
with the streams and under the final authority of the LLC.The RSE owns and develops the work definition (the SOW) and
participates in the LLC vendor selection process.
The work definition is created within the LLC budget and
takes into account the stream managers and community input.The process to select and contract for an RFC Production
Center, RFC Publisher, and other RFC-related services, is as
follows: The LLC establishes the contract process, including
the steps necessary to issue an RFP when necessary, the timing,
and the contracting procedures.
The LLC establishes the Selection Committee, which
will consist of the RSE, the LLC Executive Director, and other
members selected by the RSOC and the LLC. The Committee
shall be chaired by the RSE.The Selection Committee selects the vendor, subject to the
successful negotiation of a contract approved by the LLC.
In the event that a contract cannot be reached, the matter
shall be referred to the Selection Committee for further
action.The Selection Committee may select an RFC Publisher either
through the LLC RFP process or, at the Committee's option, the
Committee may select the IETF Secretariat to provide RFC
Publisher services, subject to negotiations in accordance with
the LLC procedures.
The expenses discussed in this document are not new
expenses. They have been and remain part of the
IETF Administration Limited Liability Company
budget.
The RFC Series portion of the LLC budget shall include entries
for the RSOC, RSE, RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher.
The LLC budget shall also include entries for the streams,
including the independent stream.The LLC has the responsibility to approve the total RFC
Editor budget (and the authority to deny it). The RSE must work
within the LLC budgetary process.The RSE is responsible for managing the RFC Editor function
to operate within those budgets. If production needs change,
the RSE is responsible for working with the Production Center,
and where appropriate, other RFC Editor component institutions,
relevant streams, and/or the RSOC to determine what the correct
response should be. If they agree that a budgetary change is
needed, that decision needs to be taken to the LLC.The RFC Series Editor and the RFC Production Center and
Publisher facilities work with the various streams to produce
RFCs. Disagreements may arise between these entities during the
execution of the RFC Editor operations. In particular, different
streams may disagree with each other, or disagree with the RFC
Editor function. Potentially, even the RSOC or the LLC
could find themselves in disagreement with some aspect of the RFC
Editor operations. Note that disagreements between an author and
the RFC Production Center are not cross-entity issues, and they
are to be resolved by the RSE, in accordance with the rest of
this document.
If such cross-entity disagreements arise, the community would
generally hope that they can be resolved politely and directly.
However, this is not always possible. At that point, any relevant
party would first formally request a review and reconsideration
of the decision. If the party still disagrees after the
reconsideration, that party may ask the RSE to decide or,
especially if the RSE is involved, the party may ask the IAB
Chair (for a technical or procedural matter) to mediate or
appoint a mediator to aid in the discussions, although he or she
not is obligated to do so. All parties should work informally and
in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion. As noted
below, any such issues that involve contractual matters must be
brought to the attention of the LLC. If the IAB Chair is
asked to assist in resolving the matter, the Chair may ask for
advice or seek assistance from anyone the Chair deems helpful.
The Chair may also alert any appropriate individuals or
organizations to the existence of the issue.
If such a conclusion is not possible through the above less formal
processes, then the matter must be registered with the RFC
Series Oversight Committee. The RSOC may choose to offer advice
to the RSE or more general advice to the parties involved
and may ask the RSE to defer a decision until it formulates
its advice. However, if a timely decision cannot be reached
through discussion, mediation, and mutual agreement, the
RSE is expected to make whatever decisions are
needed to ensure the smooth operation of the RFC Editor
function; those decisions are final.
The RSE may make final decisions unilaterally only to assure
the functioning of the process, and only while there is an
evaluation of current policies to determine whether they are
appropriately implemented in the decision or need
adjustment. In particular, it should be noted that final
decisions about the technical content of individual documents
are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers from
which those documents originate, as shown in the illustration
in .
If informal agreements cannot be reached, then formal RSOC
review and decision making may be required. If so, the
RSE must present the issues involved to the community
so that the community is aware of the situation. The RSE
will then report the issue to the RSOC for formal resolution
by the RSOC with confirmation by the IAB in its oversight
capacity.
IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes are
expected to inform future changes to RFC Series policies,
including possible updates to this document.
If a disagreement or decision has immediate or future
contractual consequences, it falls under
;
thus, the RSE must identify
the issue and provide his or her advice to the LLC; additionally,
if the RSOC has provided advice,
forward that advice as well. The LLC must notify the RSOC
and IAB regarding the action it concludes is required to
resolve the issue based on its applicable procedures and
provisions in the relevant contracts.
This document defines several functions within the overall
RFC Editor structure, and it places the responsibility for
coordination of registry value assignments with the RFC
Production Center. The LLC will facilitate the establishment
of the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA.
This document does not create a new registry nor does it
register any values in existing registries, and no IANA action
is required.
The same security considerations as those in apply. The
processes for the publication of documents must prevent the
introduction of unapproved changes. Since the RFC Editor
maintains the index of publications, sufficient security must be
in place to prevent these published documents from being changed
by external parties. The archive of RFC documents, any source
documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any
associated original documents (such as lists of errata, tools,
and, for some early items, originals that are not
machine readable) need to be secured against any kind of data
storage failure.
The LLC should take these security considerations into
account during the implementation and enforcement of the RFC
Editor component contracts.
The RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and
on mailing lists. The first iteration of the text on which this
document is based was first written by Leslie Daigle, Russ
Housley, and Ray Pelletier. In addition to the members of the
IAOC and IAB in conjunction with those roles, major and minor
contributions were made by (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden,
Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Russo, Joel M. Halpern,
Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim
Schaad.
The IAOC members at the time this RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Bernard Aboba (ex officio),
Eric Burger,
Dave Crocker,
Marshall Eubanks,
Bob Hinden,
Russ Housley (ex officio),
Ole Jacobsen,
Ray Pelletier (non-voting), and
Lynn St. Amour (ex officio).
The IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved
were (in alphabetical order):
Loa Andersson,
Gonzalo Camarillo,
Stuart Cheshire,
Russ Housley,
Olaf Kolkman,
Gregory Lebovitz,
Barry Leiba,
Kurtis Lindqvist,
Andrew Malis,
Danny McPherson,
David Oran,
Dave Thaler, and
Lixia Zhang.
In addition, the IAB included two ex officio members: Dow Street, who
was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Aaron Falk, who was
serving as the IRTF Chair.
The IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order):
Bernard Aboba,
Ross Callon,
Alissa Cooper,
Spencer Dawkins,
Joel Halpern,
Russ Housley,
David Kessens,
Olaf Kolkman,
Danny McPherson,
Jon Peterson,
Andrei Robachevsky,
Dave Thaler, and
Hannes Tschofenig.
In addition, at the time of approval, the IAB included two ex officio
members: Mary Barnes who was serving as the IAB Executive Director,
and Lars Eggert, who was serving as the IRTF Chair.
Bob Hinden served as documented editor for this version of this document
that aligned it with the IASA 2.0 model.draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-03, 2019-January-7Removed IAB as an author to follow current model for IAB
stream documents.Added note to Abstract that the IAB (to be removed by the RFC
Editor), that the IAB is requested to publish this document as a
replacement for RFC 6635. Editorial Changes.draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-02, 2019-January-3Changed references to point to current IASA 2.0 structure
document draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-23Changed to Obsolete RFC6635 from Update.Changed remaining occurrences of Board.Changed IETF Administration Limited
Liability Corporation to IETF Administration Limited
Liability Company.Editorial Changes.draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-22Working Group draft.Removed remaining references to RFC4071.Changed most occurrences of LLC Board to LLC.Editorial Changes.draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-01, 2018-August-6Changed occurrences of IASA to IETF Administration Limited
Liability Corporation ("LLC").Changed occurrences of IAOC to LLC Board.Changed occurrences of IAD to LLC Executive Director.Added paragraph to introduction about purpose of this version
of the document, and updated Abstract similarly.Added new editor to acknowledgement section.Changed document to now oboslete RFC6635.draft-hinden-iasa2-rfc6635bis-00, 2018-August-6Original version with only changes from RFC6635 were to convert
to ID format.